CryptoLaw founder Robert Deaton refuted some people's misconception on Twitter that the XRP holder got her token because of Ripple. Deaton says he understands the fact that most XRP consumers don't know about Ripple when they recycle XRP for the first time.
He added that the ongoing legal battle is over cryptography and not specifically for Ripple.
Deaton often refers to the fact that the basic token itself is just software code, no matter how it is packaged, marketed, given and sold.
In a recent tweet, Hogan and Jeremy Hogan, a lawyer at Hogan Law firm, described the war between SEC and Crypto. In his view, if the presiding judge (or her civil servant of laws and regulations) knew the technology of cryptocurrency, Ripple would have won the SEC lawsuit. He claims that since there is no single "Internet user" and the cryptocurrency is decentralized, it is reasonable for someone to buy XRP as a project investment without signing a contract with everyone.
Hogan tweeted over the weekend for a strong reason to understand why XRP is not a security precaution. Hogan explained that according to this definition, XRP is only "likely" to belong to the legal standard of securities "investment contract".
Hogan's most basic view is that SEC did not explicitly present all the factual arguments to confirm the existence of definite or very clear investment contracts.
'There are no restrictions on everything Ripple does except transfer assets, 'Mr. Hogan said.' it's still just a project investment, similar to buying an ounce of gold, 'Mr. Hogan said. He went on to say that because there was no such contract in the Ripple case, XRP could not be classified as a securities.
In the recent update of the ongoing lawsuit from here, SEC submitted an additional application to its resolution of summary ruling, which is difficult to resolve.
.jpg)
